this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5237 readers
451 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
2
‘What if there just is no solution?’ How we are all in denial about the climate crisis (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/10713443

For denial doesn’t only amount to rejecting the evidence, he argues – it also consists of denying our role in the climate crisis; absolving ourselves through “carbon offsets, hybrid cars, local purchases, recycling”. And in this, far more of us are implicated.

In some ways, this argument might not seem all that new. Multiple authors have pointed out that green capitalism, not rightwing deniers of the crisis, is our greatest obstacle to properly confronting the problem. DeLay agrees. The difference is the lens he brings to it – using psychoanalysis to explain the mechanisms behind denial.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Oh fuck right the hell off with this despairist shit.

The fossil fuel companies want this kind of sentiment to be the mainstream because the logical conclusion is "so then why bother doing anything?"

They want your despair, they want your hopelessness, they want your burnout, you owe it to the world to not let them have it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, they want you to keep voting for milquetoast centrist liberal policies that don't hurt their bottom line. Car companies and oil companies love that the "left" party in the US only supports pro-car policies that maintain our reliance on them. Every polluting company absolutely loves the tax credit non-solution because it will cost them much less than an actual emissions-reducing solution. Plastic companies love that there is no widespread plastic ban or mandatory reduction in plastic use by manufacturers, and instead only consumer-aimed recycling programs.

Fossil fuel companies absolutely love your defeatist "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" attitude. They love these policies that make you feel like you are doing something but don't actually change anything. They love when you tell people who want actual solutions that they need to vote for the compromise. They still get to keep their profits going strong, and the Earth will only burn after the people pushing these policies are long dead.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

< gonna be real quiet when the even worse option does even worse stuff because they didn't vote because "mIlQuEtOaSt!" and "rEaL sOlUtIoNs!"

Almost none of what you said is a counterargument or even separate from what I said, you just phrased it like a takedown because the idea that this movement not give in to fatalism and cynicism pisses you off for some reason so you need to make it about letting the Right win and institute mandatory coal rolling quotas is uber l337 based praxis or some shit because "bUt DeMs BaD tOo!"

"Man I know how I'll address the climate crisis in 2000, vote for Ralph Nader! Surely letting Bush win won't have disastrous consequences for the entire world!", that's what you just tried to shoehorn in here, "surely project 2025 won't be that bad!"

That is a bet only someone who has no right to be deciding could consider making.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

al gore won that election, but votes didn't decide the winner. don't blame greens, blame the people who have had power for 100 years and shepherded us into this situation.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's worse that we thought because the ones that know how truly fucked we are don't want to reveal how bad it is because it'll turn into the goddamn Road Warrior out there due to panic and hysteria

But the panic and hysteria are warranted

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No man. They just want the money to keep flowing. If they announce a global ecological threat, stock markets are going to crash and economies are going to crumble. Well for rich people anyway. The rest of us will figure it out as we always do.